Welcome To Websleuths # 3

[Steleheart]

Why is someone allowed to follow a member automatically, simply by filling in a user name, when the user desires that person not to be a follower, and in fact has unfollowed the person in question.

When one does not desire another's company and another insists upon his or her presence, that's a forum equivalent of stalking, especially when the forum itself provides the unwanted access.

Company? presence? I am not sure I understand. We are posting publicly. So if a member values my opinion or my contribution it certainly can't be as personal as providing company or being in my presence. Can it??

Does having followers here work differently than on, say Twitter? (I thought it was a desirable result.)

I'm not getting the whole "Following" debate.

 

[Gardenista]

Company? presence? I am not sure I understand. We are posting publicly. So if a member values my opinion or my contribution it certainly can't be as personal as providing company or being in my presence. Can it??

Does having followers here work differently than on, say Twitter? (I thought it was a desirable result.)

I'm not getting the whole "Following" debate.

Twitter and FB are different because you block the person and they can't see anything you do.

 

[Steleheart]

Twitter and FB are different because you block the person and they can't see anything you do.

Ah. But the principle is still the same? I am n0t a Tweeter.+

On Facebook, however you get a "Friend Request" and the option to accept, as in our previous format. On FB when you block someone they cannot contact you. But that is a Social networking site whereas WS is a discussion forum. "Friends" is somewhat more personal than just Followers IMO.

In this new format you can block a Follower. You can block anyone as before. They could still see my posts and even answer me but I would not know or care, LOL.

Actually I have never blocked anyone as I am too nosy and it would kill me not knowing what they are saying haha.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Soooooo, I don't know if this has been brought up, but I just had my first "conversation" since the switchover, surprised to see it is almost exactly the same format and colour as the main forum. Can something be done to differentiate between the two, as I just almost posted a private message on the forum by accident. At some point someone WILL do just that!

@Tricia please can this be looked at?

 

[Shiressleuth]

Not people that have us on ignore, but people we have on ignore.

Example: Someone followed me and then afterwards I "blocked" them or added them to my ignore list. But even though I have unfollowed them and "blocked" them, they are still on my followers list... I feel as if they should be removed from my followers list if I block them.

Then they would know you had them on "ignore".

I'm getting confused TBH. I have just gone and changed my privacy settings to members only anyway.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Why is someone allowed to follow a member automatically, simply by filling in a user name, when the user desires that person not to be a follower, and in fact has unfollowed the person in question.

When one does not desire another's company and another insists upon his or her presence, that's a forum equivalent of stalking, especially when the forum itself provides the unwanted access.

What?! Almost, but not quite.

Nobody’s in your home. This isn’t Facebook or a personal blog. This is a public space. We’re in Tricia’s house, if anything.

The WS forum block tool is like deciding you don’t want to talk to someone at party, except better! If you don’t want to speak with them, the user has the control to not see posts or interact in any way.

The party doesn’t end.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Company? presence? I am not sure I understand. We are posting publicly. So if a member values my opinion or my contribution it certainly can't be as personal as providing company or being in my presence. Can it??

Does having followers here work differently than on, say Twitter? (I thought it was a desirable result.)

I'm not getting the whole "Following" debate.

I’m not getting it, either, tbh. This isn’t a personal blog or website like Facebook. It’s a forum.

 

[Spellbound]

Soooooo, I don't know if this has been brought up, but I just had my first "conversation" since the switchover, surprised to see it is almost exactly the same format and colour as the main forum. Can something be done to differentiate between the two, as I just almost posted a private message on the forum by accident. At some point someone WILL do just that!

@Tricia please can this be looked at?

Thanks for this. I agree. In fact, I have worried about this same possibility occurring ... and I might not realize until it was too late to delete.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Ah. But the principle is still the same? I am n0t a Tweeter.+

On Facebook, however you get a "Friend Request" and the option to accept, as in our previous format. On FB when you block someone they cannot contact you. But that is a Social networking site whereas WS is a discussion forum. "Friends" is somewhat more personal than just Followers IMO.

In this new format you can block a Follower. You can block anyone as before. They could still see my posts and even answer me but I would not know or care, LOL.

Actually I have never blocked anyone as I am too nosy and it would kill me not knowing what they are saying haha.

For one, this a public forum, not a social media homepage like a Facebook profile.

So, imo, they’re really quite different with two separate purposes.

Now, hypothetically speaking, a WS user who has been “former membered” or banned outright might find that back-dooring their access by hiding their posts from specific people might be beneficial to them. It could keep them from being reported to @Tricia and banned again.

It also goes against WS terms of service.

I don’t see any other logical reason someone would want their public posts (or anyone else’s) blocked. Especially since there’s already a working, effective remedy in place that is pretty much the standard for public forums.

And following someone’s posts is not even remotely close to stalking, in and of itself. That’s a hyperbolic and inaccurate claim. The follower doesn’t even know they’re blocked.

We can’t control what others see or do. We control what we see or do. That’s how this public forum works.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

When one does not desire another's company and another insists upon his or her presence, that's a forum equivalent of stalking, especially when the forum itself provides the unwanted access.

Nope! Thank goodness.

Here’s what cyberstalking is: Cyberstalking - Wikipedia

 

[bluesneakers]

Thanks for this. I agree. In fact, I have worried about this same possibility occurring ... and I might not realize until it was too late to delete.

Same here!

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

People may have their profiles set to private, including the new spammer profiles. The report button should be on the main avatar/profile page.

You can still alert a mod or admin by alerting on their posts and saying what’s up in the alert message. ...

 

[bluesneakers]

Nope! Thank goodness.

Here’s what cyberstalking is: Cyberstalking - Wikipedia

This too. It doesn't apply to WS but it's good to know just in case.
Signing People Up For Spam Is Harassment

 

[Gooddeeds]

Same here!

Hey Blue, I’m not seeing a similarity to the old in my Conversations. My colors are the same there as they are here. I’m on my phone though, will check PC later this eve. Are yours the same on any device?

 

[bluesneakers]

Hey Blue, I’m not seeing a similarity to the old in my Conversations. My colors are the same there as they are here. I’m on my phone though, will check PC later this eve. Are yours the same on any device?

The same on my phone and my Mac. Same comment box, colors, layout, tabs at the bottom. Only difference seems to be the "like" and post number on the bottom of comments on threads.

Before I hit "Post Reply" I always check the address bar to make sure I'm in conversations.

 

[Gooddeeds]

The same on my phone and my Mac. Same comment box, colors, layout, tabs at the bottom. Only difference seems to be the "like" and post number on the bottom of comments on threads.

Before I hit "Post Reply" I always check the address bar to make sure I'm in conversations.

Got it, thanks! Same here, and im glad for one less thing to troubleshoot

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Soooooo, I don't know if this has been brought up, but I just had my first "conversation" since the switchover, surprised to see it is almost exactly the same format and colour as the main forum. Can something be done to differentiate between the two, as I just almost posted a private message on the forum by accident. At some point someone WILL do just that!

@Tricia please can this be looked at?

This!! @Tricia, is there a way to change the color scheme for “conversations” (PMs)?

 

[anya]

Is there a way to change the timestamp of posts from reading, for example, "28 minutes ago" to the actual time and date posted? This is one of my biggest pet-peeves, as silly as it seems. If we could change it it would be awesome.

 

[Steleheart]

Is there a way to change the timestamp of posts from reading, for example, "28 minutes ago" to the actual time and date posted? This is one of my biggest pet-peeves, as silly as it seems. If we could change it it would be awesome.

I haven't seen it in minutes. Yours is time stamped 10:00 PM. I'll have to look and pay more attention. Does it change to the actual time after a certain number of minutes? Maybe it's different on a PC?

 

[anya]

I haven't seen it in minutes. Yours is time stamped 10:00 PM. I'll have to look and pay more attention. Does it change to the actual time after a certain number of minutes? Maybe it's different on a PC?

Yeah it must. Like your reply post right now shows "Moments ago" timestamped. My post above yours now shows "10 PM" and others with actual hourly/minute timestamps. I guess it might show actual real time after about 30 or 60 minutes? Not sure though.